Re: Popen and EVFILT_WRITE question
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Dag-Erling Smrgrav wrote: DSMel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DS DSEV_SET(changes[0], fileno(proc), EVFILT_WRITE, EV_ADD|EV_ENABLE, 0, DS0, 0); DSEV_SET(changes[1], fileno(proc), EVFILT_READ, EV_ADD|EV_ENABLE, 0, DS0, 0); DS DSThis is never going to work. DS DSFirst, the second kevent overrides the first, because they both have the DSsame ident. Why is that so? The man page states that the kevent is identified by the (ident, filter) pair. This would also make more sense, because with bi-directional descriptors (sockets or so) you might want to 'select' on read and write. harti ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MODULES_OVERRIDE magic needed
hi, I'm trying to compile only a few kernel modules, but using MODULES_OVERRIDE I can only select one module. MODULE_OVERRIDE=unionfs or MODULE_OVERRIDE=if_sis is ok, but MODULE_OVERRIDE=if_sis unionfs failes with either if_sis: not found if it's defined in src.conf, or with make: don't know how to make if_sis from the command line. danny ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MODULES_OVERRIDE magic needed
Greetings, Danny Braniss wrote: hi, I'm trying to compile only a few kernel modules, but using MODULES_OVERRIDE I can only select one module. MODULE_OVERRIDE=unionfs or MODULE_OVERRIDE=if_sis is ok, but MODULE_OVERRIDE=if_sis unionfs failes with either if_sis: not found if it's defined in src.conf, or with make: don't know how to make if_sis from the command line. MODULES_OVERRIDE=module1 module2 works for me on -current Try removing quotes. danny ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Best Wishes, Stefan Lambrev ICQ# 24134177 ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MODULES_OVERRIDE magic needed
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Danny Braniss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi, I'm trying to compile only a few kernel modules, but using MODULES_OVERRIDE I can only select one module. MODULE_OVERRIDE=unionfs or MODULE_OVERRIDE=if_sis is ok, but MODULE_OVERRIDE=if_sis unionfs failes with either if_sis: not found Try MODULE_OVERRIDE=if_sis unionfs I think that is what I used before. Regards, Rong-En Fan if it's defined in src.conf, or with make: don't know how to make if_sis from the command line. danny ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Purpose of O_EXEC?
Hi, What is the purpose of O_EXEC (open file for execution) flag to open(2)? Just a hint to the VM system on how to cache the file pages or is there something else that makes it different from O_RDONLY? ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Purpose of O_EXEC?
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 06:01:48PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote: Hi, What is the purpose of O_EXEC (open file for execution) flag to open(2)? Just a hint to the VM system on how to cache the file pages or is there something else that makes it different from O_RDONLY? No, this is the only way to open file that has, for instance, mode 0111. You can get the filedescriptor pointing to this file, that is useful for the fexecve(2). Note that fexecve(2) ignores the open mode of the filedescriptor and checks the vnode access right for the exec. pgpekVy5N9fwp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: MODULES_OVERRIDE magic needed
The following works fine here note its MODULE'S' not MODULE makeoptions MODULES_OVERRIDE=linux linprocfs acpi nfsclient nfsserver nullfs accf_http Regards Steve - Original Message - From: Danny Braniss [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 3:11 PM Subject: MODULES_OVERRIDE magic needed hi, I'm trying to compile only a few kernel modules, but using MODULES_OVERRIDE I can only select one module. MODULE_OVERRIDE=unionfs or MODULE_OVERRIDE=if_sis is ok, but MODULE_OVERRIDE=if_sis unionfs failes with either if_sis: not found if it's defined in src.conf, or with make: don't know how to make if_sis from the command line. danny ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone +44 845 868 1337 or return the E.mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Feature request
Hello I have some suggestions about improving FreeBSD in some of the areas/features. Let's discuss. 1. Cluster capability As I know, there is: - Linux HA heartbeart in ports - LVS (Linux Virtual Server for load balancing) for FreeBSD 5.3 in http://dragon.linux-vs.org/~dragonfly/htm/lvs_freebsd.htm - SunGrid in ports. But looks like there is no native FreeBSD clustering/load balancing tools to do it in 'a FreeBSD way'. 2. Networking support As we know FreeBSD has a good history/reputation on networking. FreeBSD lacks these support: a) MPLS For MPLS, Linux has project working since around in 2001. It is called mpls-linux in Sourceforge. There was a project to port Ayame to NetBSD 4.0 current, but I don't know about the outcome. b) NAT-T on IPSEC I see NAT-T patch for FreeBSD 6 in 2005 but the patch not in RELEASE/CURRENT. As I know, there maybe patent infringement for NAT-T. But I see NetBSD 3.0 (with warning) and Linux has NAT-T support out of the box. http://netbsd.gw.com/cgi-bin/man-cgi?ipsec++NetBSD-3.0 c) multiple default gateways Looks like FreeBSD do not support metrics in 'route'. 3. Support LDAP SSO out of the box Linux/Solaris/AIX have native LDAP SSO support. I have asked about this feature before. The problem is whether it should integrate OpenLDAP to base system. BTW, I see ISC Bind, Sendmail and Amd automounter is in base. 4. LVM and file systems As of FreeBSD 7.0, ZFS is ported. This is great as FreeBSD do not have LVM in the past. I am sure there is still room for improvement. For example: ZFS/UFS shrink support, native file system journaling. Regards Patrick No Cost - Get a month of Blockbuster Total Access now. Sweet deal for Yahoo! users and friends. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text1.com ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Feature request
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Patrick Dung wrote: Hello I have some suggestions about improving FreeBSD in some of the areas/features. Let's discuss. 1. Cluster capability As I know, there is: - Linux HA heartbeart in ports - LVS (Linux Virtual Server for load balancing) for FreeBSD 5.3 in http://dragon.linux-vs.org/~dragonfly/htm/lvs_freebsd.htm - SunGrid in ports. But looks like there is no native FreeBSD clustering/load balancing tools to do it in 'a FreeBSD way'. There is *BSD way of doing loadbalancing with pf. A big plus is the pf supports IPv6, while LVS does not. 2. Networking support As we know FreeBSD has a good history/reputation on networking. FreeBSD lacks these support: a) MPLS For MPLS, Linux has project working since around in 2001. It is called mpls-linux in Sourceforge. There was a project to port Ayame to NetBSD 4.0 current, but I don't know about the outcome. b) NAT-T on IPSEC I see NAT-T patch for FreeBSD 6 in 2005 but the patch not in RELEASE/CURRENT. As I know, there maybe patent infringement for NAT-T. But I see NetBSD 3.0 (with warning) and Linux has NAT-T support out of the box. http://netbsd.gw.com/cgi-bin/man-cgi?ipsec++NetBSD-3.0 c) multiple default gateways Looks like FreeBSD do not support metrics in 'route'. This is sometime missing. OpenBSD has good support for it - maybe can be ported from OpenBSD. 3. Support LDAP SSO out of the box Linux/Solaris/AIX have native LDAP SSO support. I have asked about this feature before. The problem is whether it should integrate OpenLDAP to base system. BTW, I see ISC Bind, Sendmail and Amd automounter is in base. unfortunately you have to use the ports for this 4. LVM and file systems As of FreeBSD 7.0, ZFS is ported. This is great as FreeBSD do not have LVM in the past. I am sure there is still room for improvement. For example: ZFS/UFS shrink support, native file system journaling. Regards Patrick Janos Mohacsi Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882 No Cost - Get a month of Blockbuster Total Access now. Sweet deal for Yahoo! users and friends. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text1.com ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Popen and EVFILT_WRITE question
On Monday 31 March 2008 05:49:33 Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Mel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
from reading the manpage on EVFILT_WRITE I thought it would be an easy to
use interface to detect when a program wants input.
So far, that doesn't seem to be the case. Ultimately what I want to do is
pipe all the popen(3)'d output to a logfile and act on any input it
wants.
Could anyone explain to me why I'm never getting the EVFILT_WRITE event
in below testcode?
(It doesn't matter if I open the pipe with w+ or r+).
test.c:
#include sys/types.h
#include sys/event.h
#include sys/time.h
#include sysexits.h
#include err.h
#include stdio.h
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
FILE *proc;
int kq;
struct kevent changes[2], events[2];
proc = popen(./test.sh, w+);
if( -1 == (kq = kqueue()) )
err(EX_OSERR, Cannot get a kqueue);
EV_SET(changes[0], fileno(proc), EVFILT_WRITE, EV_ADD|EV_ENABLE, 0,
0, 0);
EV_SET(changes[1], fileno(proc), EVFILT_READ, EV_ADD|EV_ENABLE, 0,
0, 0);
This is never going to work.
First, the second kevent overrides the first, because they both have the
same ident.
No, the ident is one part of the uniqueness. The filter type is the second.
Third, an EVFILT_WRITE event will trigger as long as there is space in
the pipe buffer.
There is no such thing as when a program wants input
in Unix;
Yeah, I figured that out. Still, the write never fires and that seems like a
bug to me, cause it should fire since there's space in the buffer. In fact,
if you fill the buffer partially before going into the event loop, it does
fire each loop.
Plan was to use trickery like fill the buffer up to PIPE_SIZE and when it's
drained means the child read the input and we should fill it again.
Then I saw the various pipe sizes and didn't think it would be a good idea, so
went with a timeout of 'no input received' instead.
it will either read input or it won't, and what happens when it
reads depends entirely on what the fd it reads from is connected to,
whether it's a slow or fast device, blocking or non-blocking, etc.
The kernel knows that the fd at the end of the pipe is blocked for reading.
Does it also know it's the end of a pipe and what's on the other end? Cause
it would be a cool filter to have, if you could detect a blocked child as a
parent. It sure is better then arbitrary timeouts (this code will run 'make
install' as a daemon(3) and write 'yes' on those nasty post-install questions
in ports).
--
Mel
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Feature request
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:18:56 -0700 (PDT) Patrick Dung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. Support LDAP SSO out of the box Linux/Solaris/AIX have native LDAP SSO support. I have asked about this feature before. The problem is whether it should integrate OpenLDAP to base system. Why OpenLDAP? Why not one of the other ldap implementations available in the ports? In particular, do any of them already have plugins for use with pam? BTW, I see ISC Bind, Sendmail and Amd automounter is in base. Yes, but you're asking to move a major chunk of functionality into the base from ports. That doesn't really happen very often, for lots of good reasons. Those reasons are often used to suggest that the packages you just named be moved *out* of the base system, but that's not much easier than moving things into it. The other issue is - well, how much use is this for ports? After all, most of the servers you're going to install come from ports, so if they don't play here, then there's not much of a win. 4. LVM and file systems As of FreeBSD 7.0, ZFS is ported. This is great as FreeBSD do not have LVM in the past. True, there's no volume manager per se. On the other hand, most of the functionality provided by a volume manager is available through the geom system. Frankly, geom is a lot saner than the volume managers I've dealt with. I am sure there is still room for improvement. For example: ZFS/UFS shrink support, native file system journaling. Um, is something wrong with gjournal? Or for that matter, soft updates (which solve the same problem that journaling does, only with lower overhead)? FreeBSD is an open source, volunteer driven project. A list of nice to haves is cool for your personal use, but if you want to actually make any of them happen, then you're the best person to do that. Either start coding yourself, or convince somebody else to do it (and you'll find cash offers work fairly well). Even then, it may not make it into the base system. Being available as a port is often considered sufficient, or it may be that your changes aren't considered appropriate for some other reason, like duplicating functionality that already exists. mike -- Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
